"Perceived Threat": Mandate For Legal Murder

page: 1
13

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Hello again ATS!

This won't be a long thread, but I feel it is a very timely and relevant one nonetheless.

I was just scouring the Associated Press Raw feed for news and came across an article entitled DA: No charges against Vegas cop who shot vet dead.

Upon reading the article my jaw nearly hit my desk when I read the following:


"The Nevada Supreme Court makes it perfectly clear that the mere perception of danger, as opposed to actual danger, is sufficient to warrant a killing in self-defense," he said.


At the risk of sounding way too pedestrian... What the bloody Hell man???? Seriously???

A bit of backstory is included in the article. It seems that a disabled Gulf War Veteran refused to get out of his car during a police stop that resulted in a one hour "standoff" - a phrasing I find very suspect as the article clearly states that the suspect was unarmed. While I do understand that the police on the scene probably did not have any ability to know if Mr Gibson ( the Veteran ) was armed or not - but they seem to have had access to some very telling information that, by all rights, should have colored their behavior in this situation.

Mr Gibson, as they were well aware, had severe psychiatric issues - and they were very well aware of them as this snippet demonstrates:


The decision not to prosecute followed a grand jury decision last year not to indict officers in the shooting, and referred to information made public in a February proceeding that replaced formal coroner's inquests of police slaying cases. Police had multiple contacts with Gibson, who suffered from severe anxiety and depression, in the 36 hours before the fatal encounter.


The article explains that Mr Gibson was shot when one officer fired a beanbag shot, in an attempt to break the car window - and another officer mistook that discharge for hostile fire and opened up with his own weapon - described as "an assault-style rifle" in the article.

This story, IMO, is about as telling as it gets and addresses several issues that ATS'ers are already keenly aware of. It is a microcosm of most everything we've been discussing of late - and includes all the buzz terms...


  1. A reference to "assault" weapons.
  2. Mental health issues
  3. Abuse of power.
  4. Governmental incompetency.
  5. Officials seeming to be above the law and who remain unprosecuted and unpunished.


To be fair, Mr Gibson was revving his engine and burning his tires - a very provocative display given the situation. But, still, did such behavior warrant stripping the man of all due process and an on site execution?

I find it deeply disturbing that an obvious and patent display of police incompetence is seemingly being written of as nothing more than an unfortunate accident. This event was not unfortunate but unavoidable IMO - it was entirely avoidable and involved negligence on the part of the police - negligence that I see as potentially criminal.

Imagine it... we live in a society where the police can not only murder us if they feel threatened... but in a society where another police officer has the ability to create an excuse for pulling the trigger! Am I alone in seeing this as so rife with the potential for abuse as to be deeply, deeply disconcerting?

This is a damning statement about how we treat our mentally ill in this country. A person in an obvious psychiatric crisis had multiple encounters with law enforcement - over a 36 hour period - and wound up dead rather than being afforded mental health care.

I guess caskets and bullets are cheaper than a doctors time and a few pills....

This is an outrage to me.
edit on 4/11/13 by Hefficide because: I am the edit King - I have to edit everything.




posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Ill be the first to say Cops have a difficult job, balancing their own safety vs the public welfare.

How ever it seems as recent that the scales are tipping far to much to one side against the public, so much so to the point that people are beginning to fear the Police.

Too many times do we see people who call the cops get injured or worse by the very people that are supposed to protect them... OH wait thats not the police mandate, they are policy enforcers.

Keep that in mind if you ever have need of them.
edit on 11-4-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
So you're telling me...

In Nevada if a person kills another person, all they have to say is that they thought that they were in mortal danger? If there are no other witnesses and the murderer plants a weapon on the now deceased person's body ... would they not go to jail?

Seems like an awesome loop hole for a hit man.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
It's pretty simple, if you want to get away with killing people you should become a cop.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I expect to be shot to death by the police.

And it will be because my music was too loud or I didn't cut my grass as regularly as the homeowners association would like and I refuse to be bullied by people on a power trip.

The funny part is that I have worked with many police departments and generally have a lot of respect for them. Until they start infringing on my rights or invading my privacy.

It's a crazy world we live in for sure.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Does this mean we can now shoot cops and use the legal defense of "I felt in imminent danger". He had a gun, was threatening, and I felt the cop was a threat to my safety. By the legal rationale the cops are using anybody can shoot anybody and get away with it.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
That is wrong in my opinion, mainly because an officer has sufficient training to know what a threat is... A visually identified threat should be the protocol.

You know what else, as citizens you are legally allowed to defend yourself by use of force up to and including deadly force against an unlawful arrest attempt by an officer.

I couldn't imagine being in that situation and wouldn't want to be, but thought it would be worth sharing.


“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
It's not just police, although with a ruling like that, God knows what's allowable, or rather what is not allowable, but it was a done decision and had precedence.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's all desperate stuff. Good thread from the Heff, one of the most intelligent mods here in my view.
PS, hopefully it will be a long thread.



edit on 11-4-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I have to say, I'm surprised YOU are surprised!

Total fear and obedience is the goal so that when all law enforcement is fully privatised it will be as proffitable as possible.

Theres been quite a few threads about the mentaly ill or disabled being executed by the police, is that because they're an easy target? No, its because most people dont associate it with themselves, because they're not one of THEM, but the message of DONT MESS WITH THE COPS is well planted in their minds.

Our childrens future looks grim.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Explanation: S&F!

Sorry Heff ... he was completely armed ... not with a gun as you and the source article rightfully point out [termed 'unarmed'] ... BUT he was armed with a vehicle and himself plus whatever else may have come to hand.


Issues I noted that cropped up for me as I read the articles story ...


Officer Jesus Arevalo opened fire with an assault-style rifle believing that officers were under fire following a standoff with Stanley LaVon Gibson that lasted for more than an hour in an apartment complex parking lot.

In fact, what Arevalo heard was another officer firing a beanbag shotgun to break a side window of Gibson's vehicle, which was pinned between two police cruisers. Police had planned to inject pepper spray inside to force Gibson, to surrender.


Huh?
Seems like whoever was in charge of this situation didn't inform Officer Arevalo that using pepper spray was the plan of action! :shk:


But then again the article story does qualify that ...


The district attorney also cited what he called a breakdown in communication between police officers at a chaotic scene where Gibson remained locked in his car, occasionally revving the engine and spinning the tires, sending acrid blue smoke billowing around the surrounding two-story apartment buildings while police ordered people off their balconies.

"I believe that if the officers were presented with these same circumstances today we would have a different outcome," Wolfson said.


BUT that doesn't match with this part of the story as quoted above ...


Officer Jesus Arevalo opened fire with an assault-style rifle believing that officers were under fire following a standoff with Stanley LaVon Gibson that lasted for more than an hour in an apartment complex parking lot.


So they are all in an apartment complex parking lot and not hooning around the streets and so it seems to me that this was somewhat contained situation.

Don't cops have stopsticks? *** (see below)

Couldn't they have shot out the vehicles tyres?

Furthermore ...


Attorney Cal Potter, who represents Gibson's widow, Rondha Gibson, in a federal lawsuit against Arevalo, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and several officers, said he never expected the district attorney would prosecute.

"When they come out with a formal report, it's always in defense of the police," Potter told The Associated Press. "I was always skeptical with the grand jury, the dog and pony show that used to be the coroner's inquest for the benefit of the press, and now news releases."

Potter derided Wolfson's finding that Arevalo fired his weapon in self-defense or the defense of others.

"Unfortunately, the facts won't go away," the attorney said. "This isn't a self-defense case. There were civil rights violations. The only justice that's going to come is in the federal courthouse, when we bring witnesses to show what actually occurred."

This lawyer just wants to get paid ok and its a civil issue not a criminal issue [so far].
For them, I would horridly assume,... it is more about the $$$ than justice.


Finally ***


Wolfson said he believed Las Vegas police have made needed policy and training changes after intense criticism of Gibson's killing, which came at a time the department was being accused of too quickly and too often relying on deadly force.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People called for a federal Justice Department investigation. Instead, officials from the federal Community Oriented Policing Services program conducted a review of departmental policies.

They issued a report last November calling for an "organizational transformation" to train officers to resolve crisis situations without firearms. The COPS report also recommended that every officer and sergeant undergo de-escalation training in the use of non-lethal verbal commands, pepper spray, "beanbag" shotgun rounds and Tasers before resorting to handguns, shotguns or military-style assault rifles.


What happened to stopsticks?


Personal Disclosure: That ^^^ is all just a smoke and cover pass the buck situation tar and feather Officer Arevalo [who will have to face a civil trial for damages for his own actions] when his superior officer on the scene remains... unnamed!


A police spokesman, Officer Bill Cassell, said Thursday that department administrators "respect the process and appreciate the extensive review and all the deliberation that went into" Wolfson's decision.

"We now as a department can go forward with the internal use-of-force review of this incident," Cassell said.

Arevalo has been on paid administrative leave since the shooting. His representatives with the Las Vegas Police Protective Association didn't immediately respond to messages.


Aka You're Fired!
edit on 11-4-2013 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to fix nested ex bbcodes.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
This whole subject is so disturbing...My God....how many kids are going to be sent into these maniac wars on "terror" loose thier minds...come home to be shunned and murdered...if not physically, then emotionally....I don't think most people are capable of seeing that kind of horror without deep injury to thier souls...the police involved in this nightmare did not use common sence, did not communicate when and why the beanbag was fired by police.....and basically gunned down and murdered one of our "Heros"...makes me sick...



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
From the Nevada Criminal Code (Nevada Revised Statutes) dealing with justifiable homicide.


NRS 200.130 Bare fear insufficient to justify killing; reasonable fear required. A bare fear of any of the offenses mentioned in NRS 200.120, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, shall not be sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.

NRS 200.140 Justifiable homicide by public officer. Homicide is justifiable when committed by a public officer, or person acting under the command and in the aid of the public officer, in the following cases:

1. In obedience to the judgment of a competent court.

2. When necessary to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

3. When necessary:

(a) In retaking an escaped or rescued prisoner who has been committed, arrested for, or convicted of a felony;

(b) In attempting, by lawful ways or means, to apprehend or arrest a person; or

(c) In lawfully suppressing a riot or preserving the peace.


NRS 200.160 Additional cases of justifiable homicide. Homicide is also justifiable when committed:

1. In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

2. In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode in which the slayer is. (Emphasis added, footnotes deleted)


I don't like it, but I think I can see where the DA is coming from.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I'm starting to wonder if the percentage of LEO's who are also vets has skyrocketed. That would explain the trigger-finger we've seen lately. Not to mention if a vet has killed an innocent under orders, killing someone who seems threatening would seem more than justifiable.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Had I killed every time I saw a 'perceived threat' when I was in uniform.

Well it doesn't bare thinking about, but I'm guessing the outcome would have been very very different.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Whats with all the surprise..does this also fall along the lines of gun owners?

I hear them say it constantly...you trespass or feel(perceived threat) danger I will kill.

So what is the diff?



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
opps
edit on 12-4-2013 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Whats with all the surprise..does this also fall along the lines of gun owners?

I hear them say it constantly...you trespass or feel(perceived threat) danger I will kill.

So what is the diff?


The difference is a "percieved threat" is reasonable if someone breaks into your home or attacks you and others unprovoked....with the intent to cause harm......in a recent thread there was a woman who HID with her young children, grabbed her gun, and called her husband who called police.....this guy didn't give up, found her and her children, came at them with a crowbar, and she shot him......do you think this woman woke up and "wanted" to shoot anyone? Infront of her Children?

This guy had mental problems, the police were aware of that, he never fired at them, or was even known to have a weapon...infact it was a mistake that he was a "percieved threat" when police fired the beanbags and another cop opened fire and killed him......how big of a threat could this young man have been, that "trained" police could not control this situation without deadly force ?
edit on 12-4-2013 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Whats with all the surprise..does this also fall along the lines of gun owners?

I hear them say it constantly...you trespass or feel(perceived threat) danger I will kill.

So what is the diff?


The difference is a "percieved threat" is reasonable if someone breaks into your home or attacks you and others unprovoked....with the intent to cause harm......in a recent thread there was a woman who HID with her young children, grabbed her gun, and called her husband who called police.....this guy didn't give up, found her and her children, came at them with a crowbar, and she shot him......do you think this woman woke up and "wanted" to shoot anyone? Infront of her Children?

This guy had mental problems, the police were aware of that, he never fired at them, or was even known to have a weapon...infact it was a mistake that he was a "percieved threat" when police fired the beanbags and another cop opened fire and killed him......how big of a threat could this young man have been, that "trained" police could not control this situation without deadly force ?
edit on 12-4-2013 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)


I guess that is the nub of it all, the "perceived threat" a cop out for all occasions or what, a sanitized solution to a problem, same thing really. It seems that ultimately the rationale is to bend down to an officer of the law, no matter what. Even if there is no perceived threat, and if you are a cheeky teenager, a cop can smash you in the face, if you are a cheeky autistic, or fragile-X teenager, a cop can smash you in the face, in a place where his appointed job was to protect you. If you are a judge you can belt you daughter with profanity, and then come back and do it again, when you might have thought the ordeal was all over. .....Have a nice day?





top topics
 
13

log in

join